Artificial Intelligence Review

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 303–312 | Cite as

Learning style as a factor which affects the quality of e-learning

  • Suzana Marković
  • Nenad Jovanović


With the aid of the Internet, many organizations and schools have adopted the idea of applying the e-learning system, which is considered as one of the most important services provided by the Internet. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the factors affecting the acceptance and use of e-learning system. There are a number of implicit and explicit frameworks designed to inform e-learning practice. Some of them suggest key components that influence the quality of the e-learning experience: technology, pedagogy, organizational context and creativity. Instructor feedback and student learning styles, significantly affect the perceived learning outcomes of e-learning students. Namely, quality of education will significantly be enhanced if instructors modify their teaching styles to accommodate the learning styles of all students in their classes. When the teacher creates the lesson plan, it is desirable that he or she puts as many activities as possible which will reflect different learning styles. Whereas, students have diverse backgrounds, abilities, and knowledge bases, teachers who are able to use various instructional strategies have been shown to be more effective than those who just use single strategies.


Learning style Cognitive style Adaptability Adaptive testing 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ayersman D, Minden A (1995) Individual differences, computers and instruction. Comput Human Behav 11(3-4): 371–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbe W, Milone M (1980) Modality. Instructor 89(6): 44–46Google Scholar
  3. Benadi S (2004) Structuration Des Données Et Des Services Pour Le Téléenseignement. Phd. Thesis, Insa LyonGoogle Scholar
  4. Brophy JE (1999) Teaching educational practices series (Vol 1). International Academy of Education & International Bureau of Education. (
  5. Brown S, Race P, Bull P, (Eds) Computer-assisted assessment in higher education. Kogan-Page, London , pp 7–20Google Scholar
  6. Brusilovsky P, Peylo C (2001) Adaptive hypermedia user modeling and user-adapted interaction, vol 11. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 87–110Google Scholar
  7. Buch K, Bartley S (2002) Learning style and training delivery mode preference. J Workplace Learn 14(1): 5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen S, Macredie R (2002) Cognitive styles and hypermedia navigation: development of learning model. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 53(1): 3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coobs MJ, Alty JL (2004) Computer and people series. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson GV, Savenye WC, Orr KB (1992) How do learning styles relate to performance in a computer applications course. J Res Comput Educ 24(3): 348–358Google Scholar
  11. Drysdale MT, Ross JL, Shultz RA (2001) Cognitive learning styles and academic performance in 19 first-year university courses: successful students versus students at risk. J Educ Stud Placed Risk 6(3): 271–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunn R (1996) How to implement and supervise a learning style program. ACSD, VAGoogle Scholar
  13. Edmonds EA (1981) A aptive Man-Computer Interfaces. In: Coombs MJ, Alty JL (eds) Computing skills and the User interface. Academic Press, London, pp 389–426Google Scholar
  14. Ehlers U (2004) Quality in e-learning. The learner as a key quality assurance category. Eur J Vocat Train 29: 3–15Google Scholar
  15. Eom S (2008) Strategies for enhancing the learning outcomes for web-based distance education students: further investigation of the relationships between motivation and learning outcomes. AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2008 ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  16. Felder RM, Silverman LK (1988) Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Eng Educ 78(7): 674–681Google Scholar
  17. Felder R (1993) Reaching the second tier: learning and teaching styles in college science education. J College Sci Teach 23(5): 286–290Google Scholar
  18. Felder RM (1996) Matters of styles. ASEE Prism 6(4): 18–23Google Scholar
  19. Fleming ND (2001) Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies. N.D. Fleming, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  20. Ford N, Chen S (2000) Individual differences, hypermedia navigation and learning: an empirical study. J Educ Multimed Hypermedia 9: 281–312Google Scholar
  21. Garrison DR, Anderson T (2003) E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research and practice. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilbert J, Morton S, Rowley J (2007) E-Learning: the student experience. Brit J Educ Technol 38(4): 560–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregorc AF (1982) Gregorc style delineator: development, technical and administration manual. Gregorc Associates, ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  24. Grigoriadou M, Papanikolaou K, Kornilakis H, Magoulas G (2003) INSPIRE: an intelligent system for personalized instruction in a remote environment. User Modell User Adapt Interact 13(3): 213–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harvey J, Mogey N (1999) Pragmatic issues when integrating technology into the assessment of students. In: Brown S, Racel P, Bull J (Eds) (eds) Computer-Assisted Assessment in Higher Education. Kogan Page Ltd., London, pp 7–19Google Scholar
  26. Hawk TF, Shah AJ (2007) Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning, decision sciences. J Innov Educ 5(1): 1–19Google Scholar
  27. Honey P, Mumford A (1986) Using your learning styles. Honey Publications, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  28. Hong H, Kinshuk (2004) Adaptation to student learning styles in web based educational systems. In: Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2004—world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia & telecommunications, Lugano, Switzerland, pp 491–496Google Scholar
  29. Imel S (2002) E-learning—trends and issues alert (report No-40). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and ImprovementGoogle Scholar
  30. Jain SK (1996) The effects of individual cognitive learning styles and troubleshooting experience on the development of mental models in teaching a database query language to novices (Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 3414Google Scholar
  31. Jochems W, Van Merrienboer J, Koper R (2003) Integrated e-learning: implications for pedagogy, technology and organisation. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  32. Jonassen DH, Grabowski B (1993) Individual differences and instruction. Comput Human Behav 11(3-4): 371–390Google Scholar
  33. Jovanovic N, Popovic R, Jovanovic Z (2009) WNetSim: a web-based computer network simulator. Int J Elect Eng Educ 46(4): 383–396Google Scholar
  34. Kolb A, Kolb D (2003) Experiential learning theory bibliography. Experience Based Learning Systems Inc., ClevelandGoogle Scholar
  35. Liaw SS, Huang HM (2007) Developing a collaborative e-learning system based on users’ perceptions. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4402: 751–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liaw SS (2008) Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: a case study of the Blackboard system. Comput Educ 51: 864–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lo JJ, Chan YCh, (2008) Relationships between user cognitive styles and browsing behaviors of an online learning web site. International conference on cyberworldsGoogle Scholar
  38. Magoulas G, Papanikolaou K, Grigoriadou M (2003) Adaptive web-based learning: accommodating individual differences through system’s adaptation. Brit J Educ Technol 34(4). [Online] Available:
  39. Milosevic D, Brkovic M, Bjekic D, (2006) Designing lesson content in adaptive learning environments. iJET Int J Emerg Technol Learn. Available at:
  40. Moore BR (1990) The relationship between curriculum and learner: music composition and learning style. J Res Music Educ 38(1): 24–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moore K, Aspden L (2004) Coping adapting, evolving: the student experience of e-learning. Update 3(4): 22–24Google Scholar
  42. Paechter M, Maier B, Macher D (2010) Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Comput Educ 54: 222–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parvez SM, Blank GD (2007) A pedagogical framework to integrate learning style into intelligent tutoring systems, JCSC 22, 3Google Scholar
  44. Popescu E, Trigano P, Badica C (2007) Evaluation of a learning management system for adaptivity purposes, computing in the global information technology, ICCGI 2007Google Scholar
  45. Rasmussen K, Davidson-Shivers G (1998) Hypermedia and Learning Styles: Can Performance Be Influenced?. J Educ Multimed Hypermed 7: 291–308Google Scholar
  46. Sadler-Smith E (1996) Learning styles and instructional design, innovations in education and training international, vol 33, pp 185–193Google Scholar
  47. Sein MK, Robey D (1991) Learning style and the efficacy of computer training methods. Percep Motor Skills 72(1): 243–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wolf C (2007) Construction of an adaptive e-learning environment to address learning styles and an investigation of the effect of media choice. Phd. Thesis, Melbourne

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business School of Professional StudiesBlaceSerbia

Personalised recommendations